Judgment

KOSHAL, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment dated the 20th February, 1980, of a learned single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissing an application made by the appellant under Sections 482 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Assistant District Magistrate, Aizawl which have been initiated through a police report against the appellant with a prayer that he be punished for offences under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by him on the 30th May, 1978, be quashed or, in the alternative, that the proceedings be transferred to a competent court beyond the territory of Mizoram.

2. The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be stated briefly. On the 30th May, 1978, a case was registered at the Vairengte Police Station at the instance of one Thanugura alleging that men of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF), of which the appellant is a member had fired shots at handyman Thara and a driver the two of whom received injuries in the arm and thigh respectively. After investigation the police submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant to the Assistant District Magistrate, Aizawl.

3. Aggrieved by the commencement of proceedings against him in the Court of the Assistant District Magistrate, the appellant sought redress from the High Court through the application which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The prayer for quashing the proceedings contained in the application was based on various grounds only one of which has now been canvassed before us and that is that the offences attributed to the appellant are alleged to have been committed by him while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and that in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C.) no Court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of those offences. The prayer made in the alternative was supported by various assertions indicative of surcharged atmosphere in Mizoram which had resulted in the entire population becoming hostile to the appellant so that it would not at all be safe for him to attend the Court at Aizawl.

4. The learned single Judge noted the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 197 of Cr. P. C. which run thus :

"No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."

He correctly analysed the section while holding that it would operate only if -

(1) the concerned accused was a member of the "Armed Forces of the Union" and

(2) the offence attributed to him was alleged to have been committed while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.

The learned Judge then proceeded to find out the meaning of the expression "Armed Forces of the Union" as occurring in the sub-section, with reference to various provisions of the Army Act, of the Cr. P. C., the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Act) and of Entry 2 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and thereafter concluded :

"If the expression Armed Forces of the Union is understood as including any other armed forces of the Union, then the C.R.P.F. may be included therein, and not otherwise. Considering the fact that the C.R.P.F. is a Reserve Police Force, the conventional interpretation to mean only the regular armed forces of the Union may be acceptable. Members of the Police Force are holders of civil posts ............In AIR 1965 All 236 (238), it was held that the Armed Forces of the Union mean the regular Army, Navy and Air Force or an